Search Results (2)

Hypnoanalgesia is a promising non-pharmacologic adjunct technique in paediatric interventions. Its safety, efficiency, and impacts on paediatric cardiac catheterisation (CC) are unknown. Methods: In a prospective study, patients aged <16 years who underwent CC under hypnoanalgesia from January to December 2021 were included. Pain and anxiety were assessed using the analgesia nociception index (ANI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: Sixteen patients were included; the mean age was 10.5 years, and the mean weight was 37 kg. Catheterisations were interventional in 10 patients (62.5%). Hypnoanalgesia indications were general anaesthesia (GA) contraindication in four patients (25.0%), the need for accurate pressure measurements in three patients (18.7%), and interventionist/patient preferences in nine (56.3%). CC was accomplished in 15 patients (93.7%), even in complicated cases. In one case, pulmonary artery pressures were normalised compared to previous catheterisation under local anaesthesia alone. The VAS score was under 5/10 for all patients. The ANI remained above 50 (no painful zone) for all but one patient. There was no significant decrease in the ANI during the intervention compared to the baseline (p = 0.62). No complications were reported. Conclusion: Paediatric CC is feasible and safe under hypnoanalgesia, even in complicated cases. Hypnoanalgesia was efficient in managing pain and stress, and it ensures more reliable pressure measurements. Full article

Background and objective. Stress in surgical settings has subtle psychological and physiological repercussions in children. The objective is to evaluate whether hypnosedation is effective in reducing the doses of sedation and analgesia required during the periprocedural period in children undergoing dermatological surgery, without negatively affecting pain and satisfaction. Patients and methods: A prospective, longitudinal, observational study where paediatric patients (aged 5–16 years) scheduled for dermatological surgery were analysed according to whether they received hypnosis or distraction during surgery (both common procedures at the centre). As outcome measurements we used sedation doses (propofol) during surgery and the need for analgesia; pain assessment post-surgery and at 24 h using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or revised face pain scale (FPS-r) (both 0–10) depending on age, as well as patient and guardian satisfaction (on a scale of 0–10). Results: Of the 68 patients eligible during the follow-up period, 65 were included. Of these, 33 were treated with hypnosis and 32 with distraction. Children who underwent hypnosis required less total propofol (45.5 ± 11.8 mg vs. 69.3 ± 16.8 mg; p < 0.001) and metamizole in the immediate postoperative period (34.4% vs. 65.6%; p = 0.018). After 24 h, they required less ibuprofen (9.1% vs. 28.1%; p = 0.048) and paracetamol (48.5% vs. 75.0%; p = 0.028). Mean pain according to VAS or FPS-r at 24 h was 3.1 with hypnosis vs. 4.3 with distraction (p < 0.001). Overall satisfaction was higher in the hypnosis group (8.7 ± 0.1 vs. 8.1 ± 0.2; p = 0.009). Conclusions: Hypnoanalgesia in children undergoing dermatological outpatient surgery could not only reduce sedation and analgesia requirements, but also improve child and guardian(s) satisfaction. Full article